SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 225736, October 15, 2018

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALGLEN REYES Y PAULINA, Accused-Appellant.

DECISION

CAGUIOA, J.:

Before this Court is an ordinary appeal1 filed by the accused-appellant Alglen Reyes y Paulina (Reyes)
assailing the Decision2dated September 9, 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05890,
which affirmed the Decision3 dated November 29, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court of Lingayen, Pangasinan,
Branch 39 (RTC) in Criminal Case No. L-9217, finding Reyes guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating
Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165,4otherwise known as "The Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002," as amended.

The Facts

An Information was filed against Reyes in this case, the accusatory portion of which reads as follows: 

That on or about 12:15 in the early dawn of July 5, 2011 in Brgy. Malindong, Binmaley, Pangasinan and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did, then and there, willfully and
unlawfully sell Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or "shabu", a dangerous drug, without any authority to
sell the same. 

Contrary to Section 5, Article II, of RA 9165.5

The prosecution's version, as summarized by the CA, is as follows: 

On the basis of an informant's tip, Police Superintendent/Chief of Police Frankie C. Candelario held a
meeting on July 4, 2011 with the intelligence operatives of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Binmaley,
Pangasinan to plan a buy-bust operation against the accused. Candelario formed a team with Police
Inspector Fernando Jelcano as team leader, PO3 Vaquilar as poseur-buyer, and PO2 Solomon and PO1
Tomagos as back-ups. Inspector Jelcano coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA).
Candelario gave a P500.00 bill to Vaquilar for the operation which the latter marked with his initials "JBV."
After recording the operation in the police blotter, the team members, clad in civilian clothes, set out with
the informant for the target area at Barangay Malindong, Binmaley, more than a kilometer away. They left
the police station at 12:15 AM of July 5, 2011 on board two motorcycles and a Honda Civic car. On reaching
the target place, they waited for the accused to arrive. The informant sat inside the car as PO2 Solomon
positioned himself behind a waiting shed a few meters away. There being a street light and because he had
previously met the accused in a failed drug deal, Vaquilar was able to recognize the accused when he
showed up at 1AM. Vaquilar approached the accused, saying: "This is the money, so give me the thing that
I will buy." Accused handed to Vaquilar one (1) small plastic sachet containing shabu in exchange for the
marked P500.00 bill. Thereupon, Vaquilar introduced himself as a police officer, arrested the accused and
apprised him of his constitutional rights. Vaquilar raised his right thumb as a signal to his companions that
the transaction had been completed. The back-up team approached the accused and introduced
themselves to him as police officers. Vaquilar frisked the accused and recovered from his right pocket three
(3) plastic sachets containing suspected shabu. Other items confiscated were the marked P500.00 bill, five
P100.00 bills, one P50.00 bill, two P20.00 bills, one P10.00 coin, a key chain with two keys, a lighter, a
Nokia cellular phone, and a motorcycle. Vaquilar inscribed his initials "JBV" on the four (4) sachets
containing suspected shabu at the place of arrest and immediately after he seized them from accused. He
also prepared a Confiscation Receipt. Thereafter, the officers brought the accused to the police station and
turned him over, together with the seized items, to the investigator on duty, SPO4 Guillermo Gutierrez.
Candelario prepared a request for laboratory examination of the seized specimens and drug test on the
person of the accused. The request and the specimens were delivered by Gutierrez to the PNP Crime
Laboratory in Urdaneta City on the same day.

Forensic Chemist Roderos testified that she personally received the request for laboratory examination and
the specimens from SPO4 Gutierrez. She testified that the items she presented in court are the same items
delivered to her by Gutierrez as shown by the markings that she put on each plastic sachet and the
markings made by the requesting party. Testifying on her Chemistry Report, Roderas stated that all the
specimens were positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.6

On the other hand, the version of the defense, similarly summarized by the CA, is as follows: 

Accused testified that on July 4, 2011, at around 11 PM to 12 midnight, he was at the Centrum gas station
in Malindong to refuel his motorcycle. The gas station was lighted and there were gasoline boys in the
area. He had to gas up as he had to go to Lingayen to buy medicine for his grandmother who was having an
asthma attack. A gasoline boy was about to fill his gas tank when four men aboard two motorcycles arrived
and immediately handcuffed him. The four men were in civilian clothes and donned helmets. They
searched his body but found nothing illegal from him. He remained silent because he was scared and the
men quickly boarded him on a motorcycle without telling him of any charges against him. When he was
already on the motorcycle, the men introduced themselves as police officers and brought him to the
Municipal Hall of Binmaley. At the Municipal Hall, the men removed their helmets and it was then that he
saw their faces. They took his P1,000.00 bill from his pocket and locked him up. The next day, he was told
that something illegal was found from him but he was not shown anything.

Lina Reyes testified that on July 4, 2011, at 10 PM she asked the accused, her adopted grandson, to buy
ventolin tablet because she was having an asthma attack. She gave him P1,000.00. She later learned that
accused had been arrested when her husband, Abe, told her about it the next morning. Reyes testified that
she was not aware as to where the accused actually went after she asked him to buy medicine.7

Ruling of the RTC

After trial on the merits, in its Decision dated November 29, 2012, the RTC convicted Reyes of the crime
charged. The dispositive portion of the said Decision reads: 

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds accused ALGLEN REYES GUILTYbeyond reasonable
doubt for Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and hereby sentences him to LIFE IMPRISONMENT, and to pay a fine of Five
Hundred Thousand Pesos (PhP500,000.00).

The four heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets of shabu are hereby confiscated in favor of the
government to be turned over to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for proper disposition.

The motorcycle and the rest of the items confiscated from the accused must be returned to him. 

SO ORDERED.8

The RTC ruled that the prosecution proved all the essential elements of the crimes charged.9 It held that
the prosecution witnesses gave an unequivocal account of the sale, thus proving that the transaction took
place. It further traced the chain of custody of the seized items from the apprehending officer, to the
officer who conducted the inventory, to the forensic chemist who conducted the examination and
subsequently transmitted the said items to the court. The RTC thus concluded that the prosecution was
able to establish the identity of the corpus delicti, thereby proving Reyes' guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.10 The RTC further held that Reyes' defense of alibi and denial could not overcome the presumption
of regularity in the performance of duties afforded the police officers. The RTC therefore convicted Reyes
of the crime. 

Aggrieved, Reyes appealed to the CA. 

Ruling of the CA

In the questioned Decision dated September 9, 2015 the CA affirmed the RTC's conviction of Reyes, holding
that the prosecution was able to prove the elements of the crimes charged, namely: (1) the identity of the
buyer, as well as the seller, the object, and the consideration of the sale; (2) the delivery of the thing sold
and the payment therefor.11 The CA gave credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses as they
are police officers presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner. 

As regards compliance with Section 21, Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA
9165, the CA held that "non-compliance with Section 21 does not necessarily render the seizure and
custody of the items void and invalid, provided that the prosecution recognizes the procedural lapses and
thereafter (1) cites justifiable grounds for such non-compliance and (2) establishes that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items were nonetheless properly preserved."12 It then held that, in this case,
the evidence of the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody wherein the integrity and
evidentiary value of the specimens were preserved.

Hence, the instant appeal.

Issue

For resolution of this Court is the issue of whether the RTC and the CA erred in convicting Reyes. 

The Court's Ruling

The appeal is meritorious. 

At the outset, it bears pointing out that the Information filed against Reyes in this case was defective, for
which reason alone Reyes should be acquitted. The importance of sufficiency of the Information cannot be
more emphasized; it is an essential component of the right to due process in criminal proceedings as the
accused possesses the right to be sufficiently informed of the cause of the accusation against him. This is
implemented through Rule 110, Sections 8 and 9 of the Rules of Court, which provide: 

SEC. 8. Designation of the offense.—The complaint or information shall state the designation of the offense
given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and
aggravating circumstances. If there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be made to the section
or subsection of the statute punishing it. 

SEC. 9. Cause of the accusation.— The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense and the
qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language and not
necessarily in the language used in the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common
understanding to know what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating
circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) 

It is fundamental that every element of which the offense is composed must be alleged in the Information.
In other words, no Information for a crime will be sufficient if it does not accurately and clearly allege the
elements of the crime charged.13The test in determining whether the information validly charges an
offense is whether the material facts alleged in the complaint or information will establish the essential
elements of the offense charged as defined in the law.14 In this examination, matters aliunde are not
considered.15 The purpose of the law in requiring this is to enable the accused to suitably prepare his
defense, as he is presumed to have no independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense.16

In the present case, the Information filed against Reyes has the following accusatory portion: 

That on or about 12:15 in the early dawn of July 5, 2011 in Brgy. Malindong, Binmaley, Pangasinan and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did, then and there, wilfully and
unlawfully sell Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or "shabu", a dangerous drug, without any authority to
sell the same.

Contrary to Section 5, Article II, of RA 9165.17 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) 

Reyes was thus supposedly charged with the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, defined and
penalized under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 – the prosecution of which requires that the following
elements be proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2)
the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. 18

The Information filed against Reyes, however, makes a conclusion of law – that he "did x x x sell"
dangerous drugs – without specifically stating 1) the identity of the buyer; 2) the amount of dangerous
drugs supposedly traded by Reyes; and 3) the consideration for the sale. 

In People v. Posada,19 the Information filed therein erroneously lumped together the objects of illegal sale
and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. In ruling that the said Information was defective, the Court in
the said case held that: 

Indeed, it must be pointed out that the prosecution filed a defective Information. An Information is fatally
defective when it is clear that it does not really charge an offense or when an essential element of the
crime has not been sufficiently alleged. In the instant case, while the prosecution was able to allege the
identity of the buyer and the seller, it failed to particularly allege or identify in the Information the
subject matter of the sale or the corpus delicti. We must remember that one of the essential elements to
convict a person of sale of prohibited drugs is to identify with certainty the corpus delicti. Here, the
prosecution took the liberty to lump together two sets of corpora delicti when it should have separated the
two in two different informations. To allow the prosecution to do this is to deprive the accused-
appellants of their right to be informed, not only of the nature of the offense being charged, but of the
essential element of the offense charged; and in this case, the very corpus delicti of the
crime.20 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

In the case at bar, the Information filed against Reyes failed to sufficiently identify therein all the
components of the first element of the crime of sale of dangerous drugs, namely: the identity of the buyer,
the object, and the consideration. Much similar to the case of Posada, therefore, the prosecution in this
case likewise deprived Reyes of his right to be informed of the offense charged against him. To repeat, for
this reason alone, Reyes should already be acquitted.

Even assuming, however, for the sake of argument, that the Information in this case sufficiently informed
Reyes of the charge against him, Reyes would still be acquitted on the ground that the prosecution failed
to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 

In cases involving dangerous drugs, the State bears not only the burden of proving these elements, but also
of proving the corpus delicti or the body of the crime. In drug cases, the dangerous drug itself is the
very corpus delicti of the violation of the law.21 While it is true that a buy-bust operation is a legally
effective and proven procedure, sanctioned by law, for apprehending drug peddlers and distributors,22 the
law nevertheless also requires strictcompliance with procedures laid down by it to ensure that rights are
safeguarded.

In all drugs cases, therefore, compliance with the chain of custody rule is crucial in any prosecution that
follows such operation. Chain of custody means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of
seized drugs or controlled chemicals from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic
laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction.23 The rule is imperative, as it is essential
that the prohibited drug confiscated or recovered from the suspect is the very same substance offered in
court as exhibit; and that the identity of said drug is established with the same unwavering exactitude as
that required to make a finding of guilt.24

In this connection, Section 21, Article II of RA 9165,25 the applicable law at the time of the commission of
the alleged crime, lays down the procedure that police operatives must follow to maintain the integrity of
the confiscated drugs used as evidence. The provision requires that: (1) the seized items be inventoried
and photographed immediately after seizure or confiscation; and (2) the physical inventory and
photographing must be done in the presence of (a) the accused or his/her representative or counsel, (b) an
elected public official, (c) a representative from the media, and (d) a representative from the Department
of Justice (DOJ), all of whom shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy
thereof.

This must be so because with "the very nature of anti-narcotics operations, the need for entrapment
procedures, the use of shady characters as informants, the ease with which sticks of marijuana or grams of
heroin can be planted in pockets of or hands of unsuspecting provincial hicks, and the secrecy that
inevitably shrouds all drug deals, the possibility of abuse is great."26

Section 21 of RA 9165 further requires the apprehending team to conduct a physical inventory of the
seized items and the photographing of the same immediately after seizure and confiscation. The said
inventory must be done in the presence of the aforementioned required witness, all of whom shall be
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.

The phrase "immediately after seizure and confiscation" means that the physical inventory and
photographing of the drugs were intended by the law to be made immediately after, or at the place of
apprehension. It is only when the same is not practicable that the IRR of RA 9165 allows the inventory and
photographing to be done as soon as the buy-bust team reaches the nearest police station or the nearest
office of the apprehending officer/team.27 In this connection, this also means that the three required
witnesses should already be physically present at the time of apprehension — a requirement that can
easily be complied with by the buy-bust team considering that the buy-bust operation is, by its nature, a
planned activity. Verily, a buy-bust team normally has enough time to gather and bring with them the said
witnesses.

It is true that there are cases where the Court had ruled that the failure of the apprehending team to
strictly comply with the procedure laid out in Section 21 of RA 9165 does not ipso facto render the seizure
and custody over the items void and invalid. However, this is with the caveat, as the CA itself pointed out,
that the prosecution still needs to satisfactorily prove that: (a) there is justifiable ground for non-
compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.28 The
Court has repeatedly emphasized that the prosecution should explain the reasons behind the procedural
lapses.29

In the present case, not one of the three required witnesses was present at the time of seizure and
apprehension and even during the conduct of the inventory. As PO3 Jimmy Vaquilar (PO3 Vaquilar), part of
the apprehending team, himself testified: 
Q Do you remember if there was any incident that requires you to carry on your duties and
functions on July 5, 2011 at early dawn?

A We conducted buy bust operation against the person of Alglen Reyes, sir.

   

Q Prior to the conduct of buy bust operation, what was done in your office? 

A On July 4, we gathered information from the Informant that there is a transaction of illegal drugs
and so we informed our Chief of Police about it, sir.

   

Q So what did your Chief of Police do when you informed him of that information that you
obtained from the Informant?

A We called all the members of intel-operatives of PNP Binmaley to hold a briefing on the conduct
of buy bust operation, sir. 

xxx
x 

   

Q In that briefing, who was delegated to be the poseur-buyer?

A I was the one, sir.

   

Q How many members of the PNP Binmaley were actually formed?

A Four (4) members, sir.

   

Q Were there other members of any government agency that were made as part of that buy bust
operation?

A No more, only the four of us, sir.

xxx
x 

   

Q You said also that it was Police Officer Elcano who made the necessary coordination?

A Yes, sir. 

   

Q Do you know if he actually coordinated with some government agencies?

A Yes, he coordinated with PDEA at around 8:00 p.m., sir.

   

Q How do you know that he actually coordinated with PDEA?

A Because I was the one who dialed the number of PDEA when he called-up the said office, sir.

   

Q Are there any other government agencies that you coordinated with?

A No more, only PDEA, sir.

xxx
x 

   

Q So after that, what happened next?

A We immediately proceeded to the area to conduct the buy bust operation, sir.

   

Q So when you said "we", you are referring to you and your other 3 companions?

A Yes, sir.

xxx
x 

   

Q So when you were able to go near him, what transpired at that moment?

A We exchanged items, sir.

   

Q What did you tell Alglen, when did he exchange something to you?

A I told him, "This is the money, so give me the thing that I will buy."

   

Q So what was that thing that you will buy? 

A One sachet of suspected shabu, sir.

   

Q In return to that one sachet that you are referring to, what did you do?

A When the item is already handed to me, I signalled my companions and informed him that I am a
police officer.

   
 Q Where was the marked money at that time when Algen (sic) handed to you the one sachet of
suspected shabu?

A I already gave it to him, sir.

   

Q So what happened next? 

A After I signalled to my companions, I told the accused that I am a police officer, sir.

   

Q So what happened next after you informed Algen (sic) that you are a policeman? 

A After frisking his right pocket, we were able to recover another 3 sachets of shabu, sir.

   

Q What happened next after that?

A We apprised him of his right before bringing him to the police station, sir.

   

Q If those sachets of shabu will be shown to you, will you be able to identify them?

A Yes, sir.

   

Q By the way, what did you do with these sachets of shabu right after they were confiscated from
the accused? 

A I placed my markings on the sachets, sir.

   

Q Where did you make the markings, Mr. Witness?

A In the area, at barangay Malindong, sir.

   

Q You are referring to the place where you arrested the accused?

A Yes, sir.30 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

The foregoing testimony was corroborated by the testimony of PO2 Loidan Solomon who was also part of
the apprehending team.31 None of the prosecution witnesses offered a version that would contradict the
same. Neither did they try to offer an explanation as to why not one of the three required witnesses – a
representative from the DOJ, a media representative, and an elective official – was present in the buy-bust
operation conducted against Reyes. The prosecution did not also address the issue in their pleadings, and
the RTC and the CA instead had to rely only on the presumption that police officers performed their
functions in the regular manner to support Reyes' conviction.

It bears emphasis that the presence of the required witnesses at the time of the apprehension and
inventory is mandatory, and that the law imposes the said requirement because their presence serves an
essential purpose. In People v. Tomawis,32 the Court elucidated on the purpose of the law in mandating the
presence of the required witnesses as follows: 

The presence of the witnesses from the DOJ, media, and from public elective office is necessary to protect
against the possibility of planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drug. Using the language of the
Court in People v. Mendoza,33 without the insulating presence of the representative from the media or the
DOJ and any elected public official during the seizure and marking of the drugs, the evils of switching,
"planting" or contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of
RA 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) again reared their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and
credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the subject sachet that was evidence of the corpus delicti, and
thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused.

The presence of the three witnesses must be secured not only during the inventory but more
importantly at the time of the warrantless arrest. It is at this point in which the presence of the three
witnesses is most needed, as it is their presence at the time of seizure and confiscation that would belie
any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drug. If the buy-bust operation is
legitimately conducted, the presence of the insulating witnesses would also controvert the usual defense
of frame-up as the witnesses would be able testify that the buy-bust operation and inventory of the seized
drugs were done in their presence in accordance with Section 21 of RA 9165.

The practice of police operatives of not bringing to the intended place of arrest the three witnesses, when
they could easily do so — and "calling them in" to the place of inventory to witness the inventory and
photographing of the drugs only after the buy-bust operation has already been finished — does not
achieve the purpose of the law in having these witnesses prevent or insulate against the planting of drugs.

To restate, the presence of the three witnesses at the time of seizure and confiscation of the drugs must be
secured and complied with at the time of the warrantless arrest; such that they are required to be at or
near the intended place of the arrest so that they can be ready to witness the inventory and photographing
of the seized and confiscated drugs "immediately after seizure and confiscation."34

It is important to point out that the apprehending team in this case had more than ample time to comply
with the requirements established by law. As PO3 Vaquilar himself testified, they even tried to coordinate
with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) four hours before the operation was actually
executed.35 The officers, therefore, could have complied with the requirements of the law had they
intended to. However, the apprehending officers in this case did not exert even the slightest of efforts to
secure the attendance of any of the three required witnesses. Worse, neither the police officers nor the
prosecution – during the trial – offered any explanation for their deviation from the law.

It bears stressing that the prosecution has the burden of (1) proving their compliance with Section 21, RA
9165, and (2) providing a sufficient explanation in case of non-compliance. As the Court en
banc unanimously held in the recent case of People v. Lim,36

It must be alleged and proved that the presence of the three witnesses to the physical inventory and
photograph of the illegal drug seized was not obtained due to reason/s such as: 

(1) their attendance was impossible because the place of arrest was a remote area; (2) their safety
during the inventory and photograph of the seized drugs was threatened by an immediate retaliatory
action of the accused or any person/s acting for and in his/her behalf; (3) the elected official themselves
were involved in the punishable acts sought to be apprehended; (4) earnest efforts to secure the
presence of a DOJ or media representative and an elected public official within the period required
under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code prove futile through no fault of the arresting officers, who
face the threat of being charged with arbitrary detention; or (5) time constraints and urgency of the anti-
drug operations, which often rely on tips of confidential assets, prevented the law enforcers from
obtaining the presence of the required witnesses even before the offenders could escape 37

In People v. Umipang,38 the Court dealt with the same issue where the police officers involved did not show
any genuine effort to secure the attendance of the required witness before the buy-bust operation was
executed. In the said case, the Court held: 

Indeed, the absence of these representatives during the physical inventory and the marking of the seized
items does not per se render the confiscated items inadmissible in evidence. However, we take note that,
in this case, the SAID-SOTF did not even attempt to contact the barangay chairperson or any member of
the barangay council. There is no indication that they contacted other elected public officials. Neither do
the records show whether the police officers tried to get in touch with any DOJ representative. Nor does
the SAID-SOTF adduce any justifiable reason for failing to do so — especially considering that it had
sufficient time from the moment it received information about the activities of the accused until the time
of his arrest.

Thus, we find that there was no genuine and sufficient effort on the part of the apprehending police
officers to look for the said representatives pursuant to Section 21(1) of R.A. 9165. A sheer statement that
representatives were unavailable — without so much as an explanation on whether serious attempts
were employed to look for other representatives, given the circumstances — is to be regarded as a
flimsy excuse. We stress that it is the prosecution who has the positive duty to establish that earnest
efforts were employed in contacting the representatives enumerated under Section 21(1) of R.A. 9165,
or that there was a justifiable ground for failing to do so.39 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

The Court emphasizes that while it is laudable that police officers exert earnest efforts in catching drug
pushers, they must always do so within the bounds of the law.40 Without the insulating presence of the
representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official during the seizure and marking
of the sachets of shabu, the evils of switching, "planting" or contamination of the evidence would again
rear their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the sachets
of shabu that were evidence herein of the corpus delicti. Thus, this failure adversely affected the
trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused. Indeed, the insulating presence of such witnesses
would have preserved an unbroken chain of custody.41

Concededly, Section 21 of the IRR of RA 9165 provides that "non compliance with these requirements
under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody
over said items." For this provision to be effective, however, the prosecution must first (1) recognize any
lapse on the part of the police officers and (2) be able to justify the same.42 Breaches of the procedure
contained in Section 21 committed by the police officers, left unacknowledged and unexplained by the
State, militate against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt against the accused as the integrity and
evidentiary value of the corpus delicti had been compromised.43 As the Court explained in People v. Reyes:44

Under the last paragraph of Section 21(a), Article II of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165, a saving mechanism has
been provided to ensure that not every case of non-compliance with the procedures for the preservation
of the chain of custody will irretrievably prejudice the Prosecution's case against the accused. To warrant
the application of this saving mechanism, however, the Prosecution must recognize the lapse or lapses,
and justify or explain them. Such justification or explanation would be the basis for applying the saving
mechanism. Yet, the Prosecution did not concede such lapses, and did not even tender any token
justification or explanation for them. The failure to justify or explain underscored the doubt and suspicion
about the integrity of the evidence of the corpus delicti. With the chain of custody having been
compromised, the accused deserves acquittal. x x x45 (Emphasis supplied) 
In sum, the prosecution failed to provide justifiable grounds for the apprehending team's deviation from
the rules laid down in Section 21 of RA 9165. The integrity and evidentiary value of thecorpus delicti has
thus been compromised. In light of this, Reyes must perforce be acquitted.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated September 9,
2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05890 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly,
accused-appellant Alglen Reyes y Paulina is ACQUITTED of the crime charged on the ground of reasonable
doubt, and is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention unless he is being lawfully held for
another cause. Let an entry of final judgment be issued immediately. 

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Superintendent of the New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City, for
immediate implementation. The said Director is ORDERED to REPORT to this Court within five (5) days
from receipt of this Decision the action he has taken.

SO ORDERED.